Republicans are obviously leaving the Tea Party already

Does anyone believe that the deficit is anythong other than a talking point? No one is going to cut it because that would mean derailing someones gravy train. They say different things, but they all do the same things. Bleh.

chickaree wrote: Does anyone believe that the deficit is anythong other than a talking point? No one is going to cut it because that would mean derailing someones gravy train. They say different things, but they all do the same things. Bleh.

So what then are the main issues that the Tea Party looks for anymore? And I don't mean lip service. I mean what do they look for in a record?

Exactly. We have to look at what they have done, not what they say.

The Viking wrote:

chickaree wrote: Does anyone believe that the deficit is anythong other than a talking point? No one is going to cut it because that would mean derailing someones gravy train. They say different things, but they all do the same things. Bleh.

So what then are the main issues that the Tea Party looks for anymore? And I don't mean lip service. I mean what do they look for in a record?

In a record? A clean dust jacket and no scratches.

Had to...... too funny!

The Viking wrote: Maybe if Perry were more moderate he would get more votes again. Seems that is what the majority of Republicans want now. I thought we tried that in 2008? Didn't work then, why are people wanting to try it again?

I think it's because the candidates that appeal to the center have the most chance of getting votes from voters from the opposite party. Neither side has a majority from their base, that's why they try to appeal to the independents, the voters in the middle. Extreme candidates have a very difficult time getting elected. Polarizing politicians usually always lose.

Soulshiner wrote:

The Viking wrote: Maybe if Perry were more moderate he would get more votes again. Seems that is what the majority of Republicans want now. I thought we tried that in 2008? Didn't work then, why are people wanting to try it again?

I think it's because the candidates that appeal to the center have the most chance of getting votes from voters from the opposite party. Neither side has a majority from their base, that's why they try to appeal to the independents, the voters in the middle. Extreme candidates have a very difficult time getting elected. Polarizing politicians usually always lose.

But I thought the Tea Party runs on the belief that they won't compromise their beliefs or standards, yet they are doing just that. That is why the Tea Party is losing it's power. They use to fight for true conservative values. Now they are getting watered down and many Tea Party members I know support candidates who don't fight for strong conservative values at all.

The more they won't compromise, the less power they have. It sounds good to proclaim that you won't compromise, but without it, government comes to a stand still like we're seeing now and that is turning off the voters big time. The Tea Party is making themselves less and less relevant by clinging 100% to their beliefs and standards. Just like the evangelicals, a minority, who demand their ideology be followed to the letter and turn off the rest of the voters who don't subscribe to their views, the Tea Party is becoming less and less of an influence on those outside of their minority base. Elections are won in the middle, not on the fringes. The Tea Party had a nice ride, but they will sink back into the Republican Party because they can't deliver what they promise since they can't get a majority of their reps elected to enact their agenda and they never will.

The Viking wrote:

Soulshiner wrote:

The Viking wrote: Maybe if Perry were more moderate he would get more votes again. Seems that is what the majority of Republicans want now. I thought we tried that in 2008? Didn't work then, why are people wanting to try it again?

I think it's because the candidates that appeal to the center have the most chance of getting votes from voters from the opposite party. Neither side has a majority from their base, that's why they try to appeal to the independents, the voters in the middle. Extreme candidates have a very difficult time getting elected. Polarizing politicians usually always lose.

But I thought the Tea Party runs on the belief that they won't compromise their beliefs or standards, yet they are doing just that. That is why the Tea Party is losing it's power. They use to fight for true conservative values. Now they are getting watered down and many Tea Party members I know support candidates who don't fight for strong conservative values at all.

You say the Tea Party is losing it's power because they are not kissing the ass of your guy Perry....you would be speaking a different tune if the majority of the TP were just as dilusional as you. The facts is that Perry had a great chance early on (and I was hopeful), but he quickly showed how weak he was with debates, he then turned into a liberal's dream by bashing his opponents more than Obama (and looked like a tool), then he was late with his tax reform plan (he followed Cain instead of lead), then he just became a joke when he couldn't remember 1 out of 3 departments he would cut.

You see Viking, it's more important to beat Obama than it is to be the perfect conservative. The Tea Party is being careful not to pick someone who the independants won't be able to stomach....Perry may as well be a sh@t sandwich.

Once again we face the problem of party vs. Country. In a Congessional Representative I expect ideological purity. They draft the legislation and this is where it really counts. The President is the leader of the entire country; conservatives, liberals, moderates all together. We've spent too much time with presidents half the country loathes. It's toxic to us as a nation. I don't want to crush the opposition under the bootheel of ideology, I want to demonstrate correct leadership.